Atheism: Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[Jerry Siegel]

I'll rephrase.

I think it's plenty logical to believe there is no God or Gods of any kind.

No evidence that there is something is not the same as evidence that there isn't something. To me, evidence is purely physical. If it isn't of some physical form, then it's not evidence as far as I'm concerned. And things that don't exist don't leave behind anything physical.

At the very least, logic could certainly indicate such a thing. In classical logic, it’s called modus tollens. In “argument form,” it’s expressed like this:

If P, then Q.
Not Q.
Therefore, not P.

This is logically valid.

Now, you might take issue with its applicability to more empirical contexts and the god question. (Though, even there, it’s fairly robust. See evidence of absence.) But the general principle is definitely embedded in formal logic.

What I believe is that it is possible that there is a god. But I can't say if p then q because I don't know what would be true if there was a god. I can't say if there is a god, then that god created the universe, because maybe that god was created by the universe. Maybe the universe is god. Maybe the universe itself is a sentient life form.

Devas are not deities. They are not immortal, they are not omnicient or omnipotent, they are not morally perfect and are considered to have their own path in life.

The judeo-christian god may have all those qualities, but saying all deities do is wrong.

Many Christians (including my roommates) believe the Bible was written by men and therefore is not infallible. They would generally say the true basis of Christianity is the original teachings of Christ.

Adhering to a certain religion isn't about agreeing with every single word of it (there's not a person alive, or ever has been, who follows every word of the Bible), it's about finding the belief system that works the best for you.

Finding the belief system that works best for you. In other words, finding the belief system that fits closest to your beliefs. So then you don't need any belief system. You have your own belief system.

 

[Jerry Siegel]

Fair enough, but I think of it as being synonymous with belief or philosophy. I don't think it has to involve the super natural as a mandatory, and going by one of Webster's definitions, it doesn't.





I don''t see what's wrong with religion so long as it isn't one that conflicts with science or proposes bigoted view points. Why are you so against the idea in general to the point that you think most people are screwed up because of it?





To Christian's who have no idea how they got the Bible's they have now or the many different Bible's that came before it. Yes, a lot of Christians do believe these books came all together as a packaged deal and will laugh at anyone who tries to tell them about how what was selected to be in the Bible was chosen by the priest to get in their, and how certain books of the Bible relate to, and in some cases aren't meant to relate to, other books from a theological perspective. One thing you have to remember though; the reason they are laughing is because they don't know about this stuff because they never went to college for it or even read a book on it. If they did, they would know that it isn't an all or nothing deal. Fortunately, some Christians do know this; mostly Liberal Christians.

Because, as I say, I think of religion as involving belief in at least one deity. I don't think of a non-supernatural belief system as a religion. I think it's irrational to believe in deities. So therefore I am against religion.

 

[Jerry Siegel]

My argument is not to advocate the idea that rights are objectively real just as electromagnetic waves are for example. My argument is that rights can exist as one piece of our impressions of fairness and cooperation. They exist right now so we can better organize the complex societies currently in existence; taking into account the many similarities and differences between individuals. We can use objective methods (science), juxtapose those methods with our justice system and ultimately improve humanity. Are we close to doing this? No, but the possibility is certainly there.

I say again, my opinion is that if something doesn't exist objectively, it doesn't exist. Rights are an abstract idea made up by humans. There is no fair way to judge what rights are, or who should have the right to do what. Therefore I don't believe in rights.

 

[-Arya-]

I say again, my opinion is that if something doesn't exist objectively, it doesn't exist. Rights are an abstract idea made up by humans. There is no fair way to judge what rights are, or who should have the right to do what. Therefore I don't believe in rights.

I have not denied that rights are an abstract, social construct. I was not addressing that issue. There actually are ways in which we can judge what rights are or should be. This can be based on I think, how much the person is better off now than before without those rights. Or we can focus on improving the mental well being at the group level rather than the individual level. Again, the word 'rights' may not be the best in these cases, but some kind of privilege or sense of security has to be here if we care about living in such complex social groups. There will be 'rights' that are pointless and pedantic but others will be firmly grounded and fair; objective scientific methods can be used to analyze them. Perhaps you feel differently about this, I don't know.

 

[Jerry Siegel]

I have not denied that rights are an abstract, social contruct. I was not addressing that issue. There actually are ways in which we can judge what rights are or should be. This can be based on I think, how much the person is better off now than before without those rights. Or we can focus on improving the mental well being at the group level rather than the individual level. Again, the word 'rights' may not be the best in these cases, but some kind of privilege or sense of security has to be here if we care about living in such complex social groups. There will be 'rights' that are pointless and pedantic but others will be firmly grounded and fair; objective scientific methods can be used to analyze them. Perhaps you feel differently about this, I don't know.

Here's what I believe. Live and let live. Live your life however you wanna live it. Do whatever you wanna do or not do with it. Don't interfere with anyone else's life. Don't tell a person what they can or can't do unless you are restricting them from interfering with your, or anyone else's, life. Don't try and help those who don't ask for help or who aren't clearly crying out for help. If they say thank you, they're better now, say you're welcome and then leave them the **** alone. If they want any further help they can ask for it. That's what I believe. I don't believe in rights. If a person has rights, that means they have a set list of things that they are entitled to. There is no way to objectively judge what those things should be, or how many of them there should be. Therefore, to everyone, stop ****ing using the word rights. They don't exist.

 

[Bat-Mite]

Here's what I believe. Live and let live. Live your life however you wanna live it. Do whatever you wanna do or not do with it. Don't interfere with anyone else's life. Don't tell a person what they can or can't do unless you are restricting them from interfering with your, or anyone else's, life. Don't try and help those who don't ask for help or who aren't clearly crying out for help. If they say thank you, they're better now, say you're welcome and then leave them the **** alone. If they want any further help they can ask for it. That's what I believe. I don't believe in rights. If a person has rights, that means they have a set list of things that they are entitled to. There is no way to objectively judge what those things should be, or how many of them there should be. Therefore, to everyone, stop ****ing using the word rights. They don't exist.

How is your little list of beliefs here any different from someone who makes a list of rights? The only difference that I see is that yours are generalized instead of specific. What if I think that all Jews poison water supplies and that their poisoning of water supplies is therefore interfering with my life and the lives of everyone like me? Why shouldn't I try to wipe them out in order to stop that interference? At the very least, I should try to lock them all up or expel them to another nation. Your beliefs seem to apply only to people. Why shouldn't I kick a cat? Sure, the cat didn't do anything to me, but it amuses me to hear the sounds they make when kicked. Maybe I'm also amused by abusing dogs and by cockfights. Why shouldn't I participate in those things? They aren't hurting anyone because I only believe "anyone" to apply to humans.

 

[Jerry Siegel]

How is your little list of beliefs here any different from someone who makes a list of rights? The only difference that I see is that yours are generalized instead of specific. What if I think that all Jews poison water supplies and that their poisoning of water supplies is therefore interfering with my life and the lives of everyone like me? Why shouldn't I try to wipe them out in order to stop that interference? At the very least, I should try to lock them all up or expel them to another nation. Your beliefs seem to apply only to people. Why shouldn't I kick a cat? Sure, the cat didn't do anything to me, but it amuses me to hear the sounds they make when kicked. Maybe I'm also amused by abusing dogs and by cockfights. Why shouldn't I participate in those things? They aren't hurting anyone because I only believe "anyone" to apply to humans.

You're the one who believes anyone only applies to humans. And I said restricting them from interfering with your, or anyone else's, life. That means telling them what they can't do that would interfere with your, or anyone else's, life, and then if they do it anyway, punishing them. Not taking preemptive strikes because you're suffering from paranoid delusions.

 

[Bat-Mite]

You're the one who believes anyone only applies to humans.

You never specified that it could apply to anything else. You used language like, "Don't tell a person what they can and can't do.." Your rules or beliefs or whatever you prefer to call them used language that suggested they only applied to people.

And I said restricting them from interfering with your, or anyone else's, life. That means telling them what they can't do that would interfere with your, or anyone else's, life, and then if they do it anyway, punishing them. Not taking preemptive strikes because you're suffering from paranoid delusions.

What if I don't think it's a preemptive strike? What if someone's already gotten sick or died from drinking poisoned water and I consider it a response? That doesn't necessarily mean that I have proof that Jewish people did it, but let's say that a buddy of mine hates Jews and I don't know that he hates Jews, and he tells me that they did it. I just assume he's telling the truth because he's an otherwise honest guy.

You also never answered as to how your list of beliefs is any different from someone making a list of rights.

 

[Jerry Siegel]

You never specified that it could apply to anything else. You used language like, "Don't tell a person what they can and can't do.." Your rules or beliefs or whatever you prefer to call them used language that suggested they only applied to people.

Well you can't tell a cat, can you?

What if I don't think it's a preemptive strike? What if someone's already gotten sick or died from drinking poisoned water and I consider it a response? That doesn't necessarily mean that I have proof that Jewish people did it, but let's say that a buddy of mine hates Jews and I don't know that he hates Jews, and he tells me that they did it. I just assume he's telling the truth because he's an otherwise honest guy.

Get some.

You also never answered as to how your list of beliefs is any different from someone making a list of rights.

Because I believe in only telling people what they can't do, not what they can do. Giving people a list of rights is telling them what they can do.

 

[Calvin]

Damn double post glitch when the hype freezes.

 

[Calvin]

It sounds like Jerry audited or sat through his first philosophy 101 class, didn't understand a lot of it, but thinks he knows enough to act like a philosophical badass coming up with unique truth bombs (he's not). It also sounds like Jerry might just be high. I hope it's the latter.

I did laugh heartily at his rebuke of the existence of the concept of rights (even as a man-made social construct no less!), only to come up with a list of what he thinks should be rights (while saying they're not rights), all within the same page or two.

"Man, f**k math, it doesn't exist. I'll tell you what I do believe in though, I believe one plus one should equal two, and if I have three times as many apples as Steve and he has two I should have six. But that ain't math man, f**k math. It doesn't exist!"

 

[Jerry Siegel]

It sounds like Jerry audited or sat through his first philosophy 101 class, didn't understand a lot of it, but thinks he knows enough to act like a philosophical badass coming up with unique truth bombs (he's not). It also sounds like Jerry might just be high. I hope it's the latter.

I did laugh heartily at his rebuke of the existence of the concept of rights (even as a man-made social construct no less!), only to come up with a list of what he thinks should be rights (while saying they're not rights), all within the same page or two.

"Man, f**k math, it doesn't exist. I'll tell you what I do believe in though, I believe one plus one should equal two, and if I have three times as many apples as Steve and he has two I should have six. But that ain't math man, f**k math. It doesn't exist!"

Humans didn't invent the laws of mathematics, and the "rights" I listed were extremely general. When I think of rights, I think of specific rights like the right to free speech or a lawyer or whatever, the rights to specific things.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

No evidence that there is something is not the same as evidence that there isn't something. To me, evidence is purely physical. If it isn't of some physical form, then it's not evidence as far as I'm concerned. And things that don't exist don't leave behind anything physical.

I never said that logic was evidence. Just that logic is a contributing factor in what I believe, and as far as contributing factors go, I think logic is the first thing an intelligent person should turn to when there is a lack of possibility of physical proof.

 

[Jerry Siegel]

I never said that logic was evidence. Just that logic is a contributing factor in what I believe, and as far as contributing factors go, I think logic is the first thing an intelligent person should turn to when there is a lack of possibility of physical proof.

I assumed you were talking about evidence. So if you're not, then what logic leads you to believe there's no god?

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I assumed you were talking about evidence. So if you're not, then what logic leads you to believe there's no god?

To me, an IDEA that is concieved by HUMANS, that has never had any proof (and in it's very design, CAN never have any proof), about something that no human can ever know until they are dead, and that is completely beyond our world... is imagined. It's made up. It's fiction.

Is that not a logical thought process?

Sure, it's a theory, but I don't believe that anyone on this earth will ever be able to come up with the right 'guess' about existence, about the beginning of the universe, about any of it... because it's not something the human brain guesses. It's not even something the human brain is likely capable of understanding. Whatever the answers are to our big questions... they are much much much bigger than we could ever imagine.

And that to me, is enough for me to be sure there is no such thing as God or Gods.

 

[Jerry Siegel]

To me, an IDEA that is concieved by HUMANS, that has never had any proof (and in it's very design, CAN never have any proof), about something that no human can ever know until they are dead, and that is completely beyond our world... is imagined. It's made up. It's fiction.

Is that not a logical thought process?

Sure, it's a theory, but I don't believe that anyone on this earth will ever be able to come up with the right 'guess' about existence, about the beginning of the universe, about any of it... because it's not something the human brain guesses. It's not even something the human brain is likely capable of understanding. Whatever the answers are to our big questions... they are much much much bigger than we could ever imagine.

And that to me, is enough for me to be sure there is no such thing as God or Gods.

In saying all that, though, you're acknowledging the possibility that there may be a god out there somewhere. So you can't be sure.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

How did you at all get that from what I said

I'm basically saying I think it's impossible for any concept we come up with to explain existence to ever be true... because we're not capable of understanding it, and we never will be.

And that's precisely what I meant about logic being a contributor to my belief that no Gods exist.

 

[Jerry Siegel]

How did you at all get that from what I said

I'm basically saying I think it's impossible for any concept we come up with to explain existence to ever be true... because we're not capable of understanding it, and we never will be.

And that's precisely what I meant about logic being a contributor to my belief that no Gods exist.

See

What I believe is that it is possible that there is a god. But I can't say if p then q because I don't know what would be true if there was a god. I can't say if there is a god, then that god created the universe, because maybe that god was created by the universe. Maybe the universe is god. Maybe the universe itself is a sentient life form.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

See

Yeah, i'm still not getting you...

How does that negate what I said? You believe God is possible, I don't.

 

[Jerry Siegel]

Yeah, i'm still not getting you...

How does that negate what I said? You believe God is possible, I don't.

I just don't understand why you don't. To not acknowledge the possibility of a god is like not acknowledging the impossibility of a god. I don't understand people who say it is not possible that there is not a god. For the same reason I don't understand you for saying it is not possible that there is a god.

 

[redhawk23]

If someone says there is a God saying there isn't is the null hypothesis. Its the burden of truth argument.

 

[bgates87]

I've got a question for some of the atheists here. I recently "came out" as an atheist to my immediate family (who are Christians, as I was for 21 years of my life). I am at a point now where I am weighing the benefits and risks of trying to challenge their beliefs (particularly those of my teenage brother), and am wondering if any atheists here could tell me what kinds of experiences they have had in dealing with religious family members.

 

[The Squirrel]

I've got a question for you, why try to change your family? You became an atheist, alright. But why try to convert your family? As for your brother, why not let me make his own choices as you have?

 

[bgates87]

You'll notice I said challenge their beliefs, not convert them. I do want my brother to make his own decisions, that is why I have considered challenging his beliefs. Not to convert him, just to cause him to re-evaluate the beliefs that were assigned to him when he was too young to understand what was going on. Of course he can make his own decisions from there. He was indoctrinated at a young age. He lives a relatively sheltered life with my well-meaning Christian mother in a small conservative town in Kansas, where the nearest College has "Christian" right in the name. It's entirely possible that I am the only non-believer he knows, or may ever know.

 

[SuperFerret]

Depends on how you challenge his beliefs. I'd avoid taking advice from some of the more pushy posters here if you're truly wanting to allow him to make his own decisions.